4 ms·

Why should public services be ugly?

• switch007 14y ago
  They should be if it's cheaper (while still meeting the goals etc).
  • nwh 14y ago
    What correlation is there between expensive design and good design? I've seen projects that haven't cost more than a few hundred dollars and still look absolutely stunning. I've also seen projects developed this year that look like they have been dragged from the 90s, yet cost millions in today's money.
    • blowski 14y ago
      A lot of the time the design probably was sketched out in the 90s, and it's taken until this year to reach the development phase.
  • blowski 14y ago
    Making the website more appealing for non-geeks results in more non-geeks using the website. The website is a more cost-efficient way of servicing non-geek citizens. So spending money on good design can definitely be worth it. Assuming every penny spent on aesthetics is a penny wasted is a developer fallacy.
• laumars 14y ago
  Why do people insist that services which exist purely for quick searching of information have to be design-orientated and pretty? I hear the same arguments about developer sites (eg PHP manual) but frankly I prefer layouts with an emphasis on conveying content rather than watering down that content behind a wall of epic sized fonts, fading effects and huge scrollable areas. There's a time and place for each design choice, but government sites aren't there to look pretty, they're there for reference. And while it's entirely possible to have a such a layout that isn't ugly, in this instance I think the site has gone the other way (form over function) - so I'd sooner see be faced with an ugly site. NB this is coming from a dyslexic who equally hates being presented with walls of text.
  • RivieraKid 14y ago
    Because it improves people's lifes. The main purpose of governent is to improve people's lifes. But minimal websites doesn't have to be ugly of course.
    • laumars 14y ago
      You'd have to be pretty shallow to think that aesthetics are the be-all and end-all of improving peoples lives (and particularly in the case of government websites where they're just a tool; people just use them as a means to an end). Usability should be the most important factor of a government website. If it can be pretty and usable, then that's a bonus.
      • DanBC 14y ago
        "Design" means two things. To people like me and you it means "stupid things that prevent me from doing what I want. Things that are only there because someone thinks they look nice" To good designers it means "very carefully made choices that make information easier to find; that make websites easier to use; and that have the added benefit of making things less ugly." I say that a book is often a great example of minimal design. Designers point out that books have hundreds of years of cumulative design - the fonts have been iterated; the layout and the margins and the indents and everything has all had decades of iteration. I get the feeling that you and parent both agree and are now talking past each other.
        • laumars 14y ago
          This was why I switched to using the terms "aesthetics" and "usability" to make the distinction between the different interpretations of "design" (In fact in the very post you replied to, I hadn't used the term "design" once). Since The other guy counter-argued using those same terms so I can only assume that our opinions differ.
      • RivieraKid 14y ago
        I didn't say that, but pretty is better than ugly in almost every situation, that was the point. Good-looking and usable is better than ugly and usable. Websites should maximize user experience, i.e. how pleasantly the user feels. Aesthetics and usability contribute to that.